"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Aug 5, 7:54?pm, Christine Dabney > wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 19:39:59 -0400, "cybercat" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Took five pounds of roasted leg quarters and divided them between two
pots,
> > >filled with water, brought to a boil and then down to a two-bubble
simmer.
> >
> > >I could take them off after five hours, or leave them on.
> >
> > >There is nothing else in there, I just wanted pure, concentrated
chicken
> > >stock to freeze for soups and such.
> >
> > >Thanks for any advice.
> >
> > I have heard all sorts of things. Some folks think you get all the
> > flavor out of bones, meat after just a few hours...and that cooking it
> > longer will just make it taste tired.
> >
> > Others think the longer the better, that it will be more robust after
> > say 12 hours.
> >
> > Me, I vary. Sometimes I cook stock for a long time like overnight.
> > Other times, I take it off the heat after just a few hours.
> >
> > I will be making veal stock tomorrow night, and I plan to let it
> > simmer all night long. I use a recipe by Madeline Kamman, and she
> > suggests that it is good to cook it longer.
> >
> > Have you tried cooking it longer before? Might be worth it to see how
> > it turns out, just in comparison to what you have done previously.
> >
> > Christine
>
> At some point the stock is made... about three hours tops... and it's
> time to strain off all the debris. THEN one may continue to cook to
> *reduce* and thereby intensify the flavor, not improve the flavor,
> only intensify it... if it tastes like **** reducing will only make it
> taste like potent fermented ****... like how some old folks on lasix
> don't flush the terlit all night to save their septic system, by
> morning they've ****ed half a dozen times and a whiff is ripe! hehe
>
> Sheldon Airwick

My, but you are one seriously charming person.

Paul